Apps used in cycling: Bridging user preferences and scientific evaluation — A cross-sectional survey with systematic review

Smartphone applications (apps) have been widely adopted by cyclists and sports professionals, facilitating the planning, monitoring, and analysis of training. However, some apps have been reported to underestimate key mechanical variables and present inconsistencies in physiological measurements, which may compromise performance tracking and training prescription. Therefore, this study investigated user preferences and perceptions regarding apps used in cycling and examined the available scientific evidence on their usability, validity, and reliability. A web-based survey conducted between March and May 2024 included 142 Brazilian participants (118 cyclists, 15 sports professionals, and 9 researchers) and gathered data on preferred apps used in cycling and awareness of scientific evaluation. Additionally, a systematic review was conducted on September 25, 2024, using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, and VHL Regional Portal to identify studies evaluating the usability, validity, or reliability of most frequently mentioned apps. Ninety percent of respondents (128/142) reported using apps in cycling. The most cited apps were Strava (114), Garmin Connect (59), TrainingPeaks (33), and Zwift (5). Despite widespread use, 69.5% (89/128) were unaware of scientific evaluations of their chosen apps, although 59.4% (76/128) acknowledged their importance. The systematic review identified 295 studies, of which only three met inclusion criteria, assessing Strava, Polar Beat, and Zwift. Strava demonstrated good usability, acceptable geographic tracking validity, and high reliability. Polar Beat demonstrated accurate distance measurement, whereas Zwift demonstrated high reliability for 20-min time-trial assessments. However, all included studies presented a high risk of bias. Apps used in cycling are widely used but insufficiently tested.